Michael Siegel, Tobacco Analysis

Not a single anti-tobacco or health group or agency which has warned the public about the risks of “popcorn lung” from vaping has warned smokers about the risks of popcorn lung.

Let us assume, for a moment, that it is true that vaping puts people at risk of developing popcorn lung because it contains diacetyl, a chemical which was found to cause popcorn lung in several popcorn factory workers. Well, it turns out that cigarettes deliver hundreds of times more diacetyl to smokers than vapers get from e-cigarettes. Given the exposure difference, if diacetyl poses a risk of popcorn lung to vapers, then it certainly poses a much larger risk of popcorn lung to smokers.

Yet I am unable to find a single web site of a health or anti-tobacco group that warns smokers about the risk of popcorn lung from smoking, based on the presence of high levels of diacetyl.

Mawsley, Planet of the Vapes

Bans continue to be rolled out in the name of protecting the public’s health – or thinking about the children. This is because vaping is incredibly dangerous (if you ignore all of the evidence and make up some of your own). Ecig companies market their products unscrupulously causing places like schools to be shut down. And by “shut down” we mean continued with classes as normal.

Shreya Garg writes for The Hindu and she thinks vaping should carry warnings, or be banned. The reasons are simple; ecigs explode like fireworks for one. Yes, they explode like cellphones, laptops and a whole host of other Li-ion powered devices where the cells have been damaged. We’ve not seen the article where she demands someone takes her mobile phone away but we’re convinced one exists. Hang on, we missed her other reason: “accidental consumption of the liquid inside the e-cigarette, which leads to death.” She doesn’t tell us where this death occurred, probably because there hasn’t been one.

Kozlowski & Sweanor, Science Direct

We need to see beyond the value of fundamentally uninformative or misleading messages that mainly say “not safe” or “not harmless”, and work to promote better understanding by consumers of the products that are being used by youth and adults. Such public health education should not be left in the hands of an industry marketing products to simply promote sales. Health-focused agencies need to regain some credibility in communicating about tobacco/nicotine product risks and work to place it responsibly in the context of comprehensive public health activities.

BU Today

“In all my years in public health, I cannot think of another public health regulatory action that is so acutely threatening to the public’s health,” Siegel recently blogged.

A tobacco control researcher who has focused on issues from secondhand smoke to the effects of advertising, he notes that e-cigs are much safer than real cigarettes. But the defects in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations governing e-cigs mean that users must protect themselves from potential explosions, he says. Meanwhile, US Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) wants federal safety officials to investigate the problem.

Jim McDonald, Vaping360

Is Apple venturing into the world of vaping? Are they developing a mod? Those were the questions Applephiles were asking when a recent Apple patent for a “sublimator/vaporizer” was discovered last week by tech reporters.

“Apple has been granted a new patent to develop a hi-tech vaporizer,” wrote MacWorld. “The patent published by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office describes an “apparatus” that uses proprietary Apple technology to create a consistent vaporization rate, meaning more liquid is vaporized and not as much is lost to cooling.”

Leafly explained that the patent “suggests the Cupertino, Calif.-based company could be considering entering the vape market. At the very least, we now know they’re paying their R&D department to come up with new designs….There’s no iVape yet, but it’s a sign the global tech giant is interested in the booming sector.”

Clive Bates, Counterfactual

The report is an unforgiving and but fair critique of the United States’ federal approach to tobacco policy, which we think is an unmitigated regulatory disaster. Whatever the stated intent, the effect is to protect the cigarette trade from competition, damage pro-health American businesses, mislead and harm consumers and add unnecessarily to healthcare costs. Federal agencies are preoccupied with negligible or imaginary risks at the expense of great opportunities to address the health risks to America’s 38 million smokers. Around nine million vapers are already making taking action to protect their health.

So far smart, self-interested consumers, innovative producers and disruptive technologies have interacted in a lightly regulated free market to begin to tackle the huge burden of disease arising from smoking. That is about to change: the dominant reaction of the federal government is to choke these highly positive developments with huge regulatory burdens, opaque authorization procedures, impossible evidential tests and misinformation about risks.

Nancy Sutthoff, Aotearoa Vape Community Advocacy

This resource location or “vape cooperative” is a one stop shop for harm reduction – specifically tobacco harm reduction. Individuals can access information, guidance, and equipment to make the switch from combustible tobacco smoking to vaping. It is run by an AVCA VIF Mentor/Advocate who volunteers their time and knowledge to educate and support smokers and other interested community members, about all things ‘vape’ related.

“Cooperative” has a dual meaning – the first is that it is a community operated and supported resource, community being not just AVCA mentors but also and health care professionals and community advocates; the second being vendor cooperative – the VC sets up the individual at the start of their journey from tobacco to vape, AVCA supports the individual through mentoring with a dedicated advocate/vape buddy and then, after 8 weeks of mentoring, the individual is then referred to vendors for the continuation of their journey.

Diane Caruana, VapingPost

Abboud addressed the Committee on behalf of the numerous struggling vaping businesses, and took the opportunity to explain the current state of affairs and how the imposed regulations had nothing to do with concern for public health. “The problem is that the entire basis upon which the current law was promoted is essentially a ruse; a fiction created to justify the imposition of a security firm monopoly.” he said.

“Many of our member companies are manufacturers of e-liquids and vapor devices that sell in all 50 states, that is until the passage of Indiana’s current law which created a monopoly by giving ONE security company the power to choose which handful of companies it would permit to do business in Indiana.” he added.